Violent arrest of nurse in Salt Lake City was BS but not for the reason you think

There is a lot of hype and misinformation surrounding this case but ONE thing has yet to be discussed — the reason WHY it happened

(National Sentinel) Constitution: If ever there was a legal case that proves just how far we have strayed as a nation from our Constitution — and why that is troubling, dangerous, and undemocratic — this is it.

In recent days an emergency room nurse working at a hospital in Salt Lake City was violently arrested by a local police officer for refusing to provide the officer with a patient’s blood sample. The arrest was caught on the officer’s body cam and was also recorded by several other officers’ body cams who were in the vicinity.

Reports claim that the arrest was bogus because the officer did not have legal cause to make it; unfortunately, those claims are not accurate, at least in a legal sense. I’ll explain.

As reported byThe Daily Bell, the nurse — Alex Wubbles — who was being instructed by hospital legal counsel on the phone at the time, asked Det. Jeff Payne a series of questions to ascertain if one of three conditions for complying with an order from police to provide a blood sample from an unresponsive patient was being met.

“Is this patient under arrest?” she asked Payne. “Nope,” he responds.

“Do you have an electronic warrant?” Wubbles asked next.

“No,” Payne says rather bluntly, clearly becoming more annoyed.

Wubbles then printed out the hospital’s policy — which had been agreed to by the Salt Lake City Police Department — and showed it to Payne and the other officers. Calmly, clearly, she listed the conditions for which she, per hospital policy, could provide police with a patient’s blood sample:

— When presented with a warrant (which has to be based on probable cause);

— When a coherent, conscious patient consents to having his or her blood drawn;

— When a patient is under arrest.

None of those three pre-conditions existed.

To Payne and, unfortunately, in the eyes of the law and Supreme Court precedent, none of that mattered.

“Okay, so I take it, without those in place, I am not going to get blood?” Payne can be heard asking Wubbles.

Payne made his move: At that point, he became excessively aggressive with Wubbles, cuffed her, and took her outside to his squad car, where she remained for what some reports suggested was about 20 minutes. She was not arrested.

According to hospital policy, had Wubbles provided the officer blood without the existence of any of the conditions she listed, she most likely could have been held legally responsible by the patient, as in, she could have been sued and her employer, the hospital, sued as well.

But as noted by the Salt Lake City Tribune, while Wubbles was in the right, it wasn’t for the reasons she believed.

First and foremost, the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment lays out a citizen’s rights when it comes to searches and seizures by police: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Det. Payne had no probable cause and he had no warrant; therefore, the unconscious patient had every right to expect “to be secure” in his “persons.”

But Utah state law governing motor vehicles says that “[a] person operating a motor vehicle in this state is considered to have given … consent” when it comes to tests of blood, breath or other bodily substances, “for purposes of determining whether the person was violating any laws regarding driving under the influence,” the Salt Lake City Tribune noted.

Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court just last year decided favorably in support of implied consent laws like those adopted by Utah — which essentially say you give up a portion of your Fourth Amendment rights just for the ‘privilege’ of being able to travel in a motor vehicle.

Others argue that in this particular case the SLC officer still was in violation of Utah’s laws because they require police to believe that that the patient from which they seek to obtain a blood sample was driving “while in violation of” laws prohibiting driving under the influence; Payne wanted a blood sample to prove just the opposite of that, which ostensibly means he ran afoul of the state statute.

The problem here is that whenever the plain language of the nation’s founding document is tampered with, citizens’ rights suffer.

4 Comments on Violent arrest of nurse in Salt Lake City was BS but not for the reason you think

You say she wasn’t arrested…. the officer said he was arresting her didn’t he? He dragged her out the car physically, and detained her. I would personally say that was arresting her, perhaps it would be better to just say she wasn’t CHARGED.

All you people miss one very important element. The patient was a TRUCK DRIVER. Most truck drivers have a CDL license, which is governed by FEDERAL LAW. CDL holders, BY FED LAW, must be tested after a accident that involves a death. It does not matter if he his at fault or not, he MUST be tested.

What it really means is a cop can get by with anything he wants – his protectors, including the courts of injuustice can always find a “reason”, as verified by the thousands of innocents that have been killed by cops with apparent impunity.

As for facts, in the first we can only be arrested for probable cause through an indictment by the 5th amdendment’s requirement that demands the indictment be by the Grand Jury.

As for the second, where in the Constitution for the United States of America does it state that a government may lincesed travel and that a man or woman must have permission of government. To make a long story short, it does not state it nor does it state that govenrment may interfered in our lives, bodies, with our inherent rights, and, in other words, if not given, the authority does not exist. Therefore, the CDL crap above does not hold water but instead holds BS.

BTW, it has no authority to regulate trade between ths states but may demand US created vessels that go through states. See the 1938 Driver’s License Comact, TItles 18, 46, and 49 for a start.

By the way, (W.I.T.H. again) if you live in a state that was founded at leasts before 1875, you will find this or some form of it in your state’s Constitution, that the people have the authority to regulate government, including the police. Here is how it is stated in my state’s law or Constitution. The rest of the states should but I have never checked. I have had my hands full with every official to date violates their Oaths, acting like a racketeering criminal organization rather than governments by, for, and of the people.

‘Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government.
Section 3. That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 2’

Also, no court decision is law. Nor can any legislature make any law the violates the Constitution. Also, any law that is interpreted differewntly by two or more people is void for vajueness. Hende, sp[lit decisions from the so-called Supreme Court are null and void, for vagueeness, as are any law written by legislators in violation of our inherent rights. See such cases as Hale Vs Henkel that could well lead you to thousands of decisions that have never been overturned, including all that state the people are the soverweignty in America, which means they are not under government control and any statute that says otherwise is null and void and the people should not obey. Governmwent is subserveant to we people, period.